Boyle, though he must certainly have known of Mayow, neither quotes him, nor uses, or improves on his experiments; though as I have already remarked, he seems to have had notions of the atmosphere much like those adopted by Mayow. Whether this neglect arose from the pride of birth, or the pride of knowledge, or the pride of age, (for Boyle was almost twice the age of Mayow) or from jealousy of Mayow’s abilities, cannot now be ascertained. From that time until Hales published his statics in 1726, pneumatic experiments were neglected, and the mathematical philosophy which Newton’s discoveries rendered fashionable, absorbed for many years the attention of men of Science, particularly in England. The way in which Lemery, Hales and Brownrigg speak of Mayow, evidently shews that his theories were not understood, nor his merits appreciated. That Mayow was unknown to Black and Cavendish until of late years, is highly probable at least, if not absolutely certain. Neither these philosophers, nor Dr. Priestley, could have passed over Mayow’s book, without being struck with his ideas, and publicly referring to them in their chemical works. That Dr. Priestley was unacquainted with Mayow is certain, from the limited extent of his reading at the early period of his experiments (from 1770 to 1776 or 1777,) in books of chemistry and theoretic physiology: from Mayow, not being quoted by any of the writers whose works Dr. Priestley would be likely to consult except Hales and Brownrigg, and not by them in a manner to induce any farther curiosity: from their being unnoticed by Black, Cavendish, Sir John Pringle, and Lavoisier, in particular: from the custom that Dr. Priestley had of acknowledging the sources of his ideas in all cases where they originated from the discoveries of others, as in his references to Hales, Brownrigg, Cavendish, &c; and from his making no mention of Mayow in his express account of the labours of his predecessors on the subject of animal respiration. That both he and Sir John Pringle before the Royal Society in 1772 and 1776 should expressly treat the _history_ of discoveries in which Mayow bore so distinguished a part, and omit noticing him altogether, had they known of his works, is incredible. It is evident that he was then an obscure writer, and not in repute, or he would have occurred to them; or some of their philosophical friends would have suggested the propriety of referring to his publications.